Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.09.03 11:37:58 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:43077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1367 of 2022 1 - Geetanjali Patel W/o Late Shri Rajendra Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o. Village - Tongopathra, Police Station And Tehsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Harish Patel S/o Late Shri Rajendra Patel Aged About 14 Years Through Their Natural Guardian (Mother) Geetanjali Patel (Appellant No. 1 Herein). R/o. Village - Tongopathra, Police Station And Tehsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Satish Patel S/o Late Shri Rajendra Patel Aged About 11 Years Through Their Natural Guardian (Mother) Geetanjali Patel (Appellant No. 1 Herein). R/o. Village - Tongopathra, Police Station And Tehsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Ramesh S/o Shri Mahajan Aged About 49 Years R/o. Behind Community Health Centre Abhanpur, Tehsil - Abhanpur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - United India Insurance Company Ltd Through Its Branch Manager, Amar Complex, Jeevan Bima Marg Pandri, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle (Motor Cycle) --- Respondents For appellants For respondent No. 1 For respondent No. 2.
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rishi Sahu, Adv. : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Adv. : Mr. Pooja Yadav, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Ratan Pusty, Adv. (Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.) ORDER ON BOARD 25-8-2025 1. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This is claimants’ appeal under Section 33 of the Workmen 2 Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth, referred to as the ‘Act, 1923’) against the Award dated 27-9-2022 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Mahasamund (CG) (henceforth, referred to as ‘Commissioner’) in Case No. 3/WC Act/2019, whereby claim case filed by the appellants/claimants has been dismissed. (henceforth, parties would be referred as per their status before the Commissioner.) 3. Facts of the case, as per the claim case, filed by the claimants, are that they are wife and minor sons of deceased Rajendra Patel. Rajendra Patel was employed as a driver in the mini-bus owned by non-applicant No.1. It is further averred in the claim application that, on the instructions of non-applicant No.1, Rajendra Patel was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 06 PA 1773 (henceforth, referred to as ‘offending motorcycle’) from village Sankra to Abhanpur along with helper Toranlal Yadav. On the way, at Fingeshwar Sararful, Rajendra Patel, who was driving the offending motorcycle, lost control on it and collided with a divider, causing both Rajendra Patel and Toranlal Yadav to fall into water. Rajendra Patel died in the accident. The incident was reported to Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariaband, and a case was registered under Marg No. 22/2012. At the time of his death, Rajendra Patel was 27 years old and used to earn Rs. 350/- per day from his employment. The claimants were dependent on him. The accident occurred while Rajendra Patel was working under the employment of non-applicant 3 No.1. At the relevant time, the motorcycle was insured by non- applicant No.2. The non-applicants did not pay any compensation, therefore, the claimants filed instant claim petition praying for a total sum of Rs. 8,61,120/- as compensation with penalty and interest, jointly or severally from the non-applicants. 4. The non-applicant No. 1 filed his written statement and denied all the pleading of the claim case stating that on the date and time of the accident, the deceased was not working under him as an employee. He had left employment a year earlier. No documents were produced to prove that Rajendra Patel was employed at the time of accident, nor that, his death occurred during employment. The deceased was traveling for personal reasons, and the accident occurred due to his own negligence. After filing written statement, the non-applicant No. 1 remained absent and was proceeded ex-parte. 5. Non-applicant No.2 also filed written statement, denied the pleading of claim case and stated that, the accident did not occur during the course of employment of the deceased under non-applicant No.1, and no premium was paid for employee risk under the insurance policy. The ownership of the motorcycle was with the deceased, and therefore, no compensation is liable to be paid to the claimants under the Act, 1923. 6. On the basis of pleading of the parties, learned Commissioner framed as many as 5 issues, recorded evidence of both the parties and vide impugned award, rejected the claim of the appellants/ claimants, being aggrieved by which, the appellants/claimants have preferred 4 instant appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that, the learned Commissioner has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. The claimants have proved that the deceased was working as driver of mini bus of the non-applicant No. 1, the motor cycle of the deceased was insured with the non-applicant No. 2, he was earning Rs. 350/- per days, but ignoring all these facts and evidence available on record, the Commissioner has wrongly rejected their claim. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed and compensation with penalty and interest, as prayed for, may be awarded to them. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant No. 1 submits that, the Commissioner has rightly rejected the claim of the claimants, as they have failed to prove that the deceased was employed under non-applicant No. 1. There was no employer and employee relation between non-applicant No. 1 and deceased. Income of the deceased has not been proved. The claimants had filed a claim application under the Motor Vehicles Act, but in that claim case, they have not mentioned the fact that the deceased was employee of the non- applicant No. 1. Therefore, instant MAC may be rejected. 9. Learned counsel appearing for non-applicant No. 2/Insurance company submits that, motorcycle in question was insured with it, but no premium was paid for covering the risk of workman. No document has been filed by the claimants regarding employment of deceased under the non-applicant No. 1. Driving licence of the deceased has also not been filed by the claimants. The claimants have failed to 5 prove their claim. Hence, instant appeal may be rejected. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The burden to prove employment at time of accident is on the claimants. The wife of the deceased, Geetanjali in her Court statement has stated that the deceased used to drive the mini-bus of non-applicant No.1, but no evidence or documents regarding his employment under non-applicant No. 1 or salary were produced. The claimants have also filed the application as Ex. P-9, which they had filed under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but perusal of that claim application shows that, in that claim case, the claimants had not stated that the deceased was employed under non-applicant No. 1. In para 6 thereof, only it was stated that, he was a driver and used to drive bus, jeep tractor etc. Virendra Nayak (AW 2) has also not stated anything about employment of deceased under the non-applicant No. 1. No document has been filed by the claimants to show that there was employer – employee relation between the non-applicant No. 1 and the deceased. In the FIR (Ex. P-5) of the criminal case lodged by Toranlal Yadav, there is no mention that the deceased was working in the employment of non-applicant No. 1. 12. Instant claim application has been filed by the claimants under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 claiming the deceased to be employee of non-applicant No. 1, but neither claimants nor non- applicant No. 1 has pleaded or proved that, non-applicant No. 1 had got insured his employee by getting insurance policy. In the instant 6 case, it has been pleaded that, the offending motorcycle was insured by non-applicant No. 2 and deceased himself was insured, therefore, under that policy, the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation under the Act of 1923. 13. Under sections 10 and 3(2) of the Act of 1923, establishment of the employer-employee relationship at least for six months prior to the accident, and proof that the death occurred during employment, is necessary. The claimants failed to prove the existence of such employment or that the accident happened during employment. Further, it has also not been proved that, non-applicant No. 1 had got insured his employee by getting insurance policy. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Commissioner has not committed any error in rejecting the claim application of the claimants. 14. In view of above discussion, the instant appeal being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 15.
Decision
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak